3:  Congress,  ) 
:d  Session.  ) 


SENATE. 


r 


Ex.  Doc.  19, 
Part  8. 


LETTER 

FROM 

THE  SECRETARY  OF  VAR, 


<o 


TRANSMITTING 


A  copy  of  the  report  of  May.  W.  E.  Merrill,  Corps  of  Engineers,  upon  the 
radical  improvement  of  the  Ohio  River  from  Cairo  to  Pittsburgh. 


March  3,  1875. — Ordered  to  lie  on  the  table  and  be  printed. 


War  Department,  March  2,  1875. 
i?he  Secretary  of  War  has  the  honor  to  transmit  to  the  United  States 
Senate  copy  of  report  from  Maj.  W.  E.  Merrill,  Corps  of  Engineers, 
•  ij.  on  the  radical  improvement  of  the  Ohio  River  from  Cairo  to  Pitts- 
!  urgh,  being  the  improvement  contemplated  by  the  first  subdivision  of 
Oie,  central  route  indicated  in  the  report  of  the  Senate  Select  Committee 
m  Transportation- Routes  to  the  Seaboard. 

WM.  W.  BELKNAP, 

Secretary  of  War. 


Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington ,  D.  C.,  March  1, 1875. 

Sir  :  In  further  compliance  with  provisions  of  the  river  and  harbor 
act  of  June  23, 1874,  for  surveys  and  estimates  for  the  improvements  rec- 
po. amended  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Transportation-Routes  to  the 
Sc  board,  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  a  report  from 
A  ?  .  William  E.  Merrill,  Corps  of  Engineers,  upon  the  radical  improve- 
a  it  of  the  Ohio  River  from  Cairo  to  Pittsburgh,  so  as  to  give  6  to  7 
oet  of  navigation  at  low  water  ;  being  the  improvement  contemplated 
by  the  first  subdivision  of  the  committee’s1  central  route. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  A.  HUMPHREYS, 
Brigadier-  General  and  Chief  of  Engineers. 

Hon.  W.  W.  Belknap, 

Secretary  of  War. 


FIRST  SUBDIVISION  OF  THE  CENTRAL  TRANSPORTATION-ROUTE. 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

Cincinnati ,  Ohio,  February  25,  1875. 
General:  In  your  letter  of  June  30, 1874,  you  direct  me  to  submit 
a  report  on  the  following  through-transportation  route  recommended 


2 


TRANSI  ORTATION  ROUTES. 


for  examination  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Transportation,  viz  :  “  The 
radical  improvement  of  the  Ohio  River  from  Cairo  to  Pittsburgh,  so  as 
to  give  6  or  7  feet  of  navigation  at  low  water.”  In  accordance  with 
these  instructions  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report. 

The  subject  of  the  radical  improvement  of  the  Ohio  River  has  been  so 
often  discussed  in  official  reports  that  it  will  only  be  necessary  in  this 
connection  to  give  the  conclusions  set  forth  in  these  reports.  My 
predecessor  in  charge  of  the  improvement  of  the  Ohio,  Mr.  W.  Miluor 
Roberts,  civil  engineer,  in  his  last  report  on  the  river,  dated  April  21, 
1870,  and  printed  as  Ex.  Doc.  No.  72,  House  of  Representatives,  41st 
Congress,  3d  session,  recommended  the  ordinary  slack-water  system, 
with  the  addition  of  what  he  called  “freshet-chutes,”  to  be  opened  and 
closed  by  the  floating  ponton  devised  by  the  Hon.  F.  R.  Brunot,  of 
Pittsburgh,  generally  known  as  Brunot’s  hydraulic  gate.  The  details 
of  these  chutes  he  did  not  attempt  to  elaborate. 

The  board  of  engineers  appointed  to  make  a  report  on  the  radical 
improvement  of  the  Ohio  by  hydraulic  gates  and  movable  dams,  con¬ 
sisting  of  Major  Weitzel  and  myself,  submitted  a  report,  dated  January 
31,  1874,  (printed  as  Ex.  Doc.  No.  127,  House  of  Representatives,  4  3d 
Congress,  1st  session,)  in  which,  after  giving  full  descriptions  of  all  the 
various  apparatus  in  use  in  France,  Germany,  England,  and  India, 
they  finally  concluded  that  before  deciding  absolutely  upon  any  method 
of  improvement,  it  would  be  desirable  to  test  the  Brunot  gate  on  the 
Monongahela. 

In  addition  they  expressed  the  opinion  that,  should  this  gate  work 
satisfactorily,  it  might  be  more  advantageous  to  use  it  in  connection 
with  permanent  dams  than  to  adopt  the  French  practice  of  movable 
dams. 

The  board  thus  substantially  agreed  with  Mr.  W.  Milnor  Roberts. 

Since  that  time  I  have  continued  my  studies  in  this  matter,  and  have 
finally  concluded  that  the  French  system  of  movable  dams  is  the  best 
that  can  be  adopted.  I  have  therefore  abandoned  the  contingent  opin¬ 
ion  which,  as  a  member  of  the  board,  I  gave  in  favor  of  permanent 
dams  with  Brunofls  gate  and  sluice.  This  final  opinion  is  given  in  my 
last  annual  report  on  the  improvement  of  the  Ohio  River,  printed  in  the 
report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  for  1874. 

My  reasons  for  this  change  are  briefly  as  follows : 

1.  The  Brunot  gate  itself  may  not  operate  satisfactorily ;  on  this 
point  we  have  no  positive  information,  as  the  trial  which  the  board  rec¬ 
ommended  was  not  made  for  lack  of  an  appropriation  for  this  purpose. 
Something,  however,  can  be  learned  from  the  test  made  in  France  of 
the  Krantz  ponton,  which  in  many  respects  is  similar  to  the  Brunot  pon¬ 
ton  or  gate.  On  this  matter  my  information  is  unfortunately  vague, 
the  substance  of  it  being  that  I  have  received^  private  advices  from  a 
distinguished  French  engineer,  that  the  Krantz  system,  which,  as  stated 
in  the  board  report,  was  a  trial  on  the  Seine  below  Paris,  did  not  work 
satisfactorily.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  trouble  may  have  arisen 
from  the  points  in  which  it  differs  from  Brunot’s  gates,  and  not  from 
those  in  which  the  two  agree )  I  therefore  do  not  lay  much  stress  on 
this  objection. 

2.  The  Brunot  gate,  if  used  as  proposed,  requires  the  addition  of  a 
long  inclined  plane  above  and  below  the  gate,  so  as,  if  possible,  to  avoid 
the  wave  at  the  entrance  into  the  pass  and  the  waves  at  the  foot,  where 
connection  is  made  with  the  lower  pool.  There  seems  good  reason  to 
fear  that  these  waves  might  prove  dangerous  to  coal -fleets.  In  any 
event  these  inclined  planes  must  be  quite  costly.  It  is  apparently  iiu- 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


a 

possible  to  avoid  them,  as  the  construction  of  the  Brunot  ponton  is  such 
that  when  the  pass  is  open  the  ponton  is  dropped  down  into  a  chamber 
beneath  it.  The  depth  of  this  chamber  must  be  a  little  more  than  the 
depth  of  the  ponton.  The  bottom  of  this  chamber  cannot  be  much,  if  at 
all,  below  the  bed  of  the  river,  as  otherwise  it  might  become  impossible 
to  keep  it  clear  of  sedimentary  deposits.  Allowing  one  foot  of  clearance 
below  the  ponton,  we  find  that  the  greatest  depth  to  which  the  latter 
can  be  lowered  is  one-half  a  foot  less  than  half  the  vertical  distance  be¬ 
tween  the  comb  of  the  dam  and  the  bed  of  the  river.  Assuming  a  dif¬ 
ference  of  level  between  the  two  pools  of  6  feet,  and  a  depth  of  6  feet  at 
the  head  of  the  lower  pool,  we  find  that  the  ponton  when  down  cannot 
be  lower  than  —  J=5  J  feet  below  the  crest  of  the  dam,  or  6J  feet  above 
the  bottom  of  the  river.  .Assuming  that  the  opening  of  the  pass  will 
not  materially  lower  the  level  of  the  upper  pool,  which  would  be  the 
case  if,  as  assumed  in  the  board  report,  the  pass  were  opened  in  low 
water  only  long  enough  to  let  a  fleet  through,  we  would  have  a  difference 
of  level  of  6  feet  to  be  overcome.  The  inclined  plane  could  not  have  a 
steeper  slope  than  1  in  100,  and  it  would  be  better  to  give  it  as  little 
as  1  foot  in  200.  We  thus  see  that  the  lower  inclined  plane  could  not 
be  less  than  from  600  to  1,200  feet  in  length.  The  length  of  the  upper 
inclined  plane,  by  which  the  water  is  gradually  brought  to  the  pass, 
would  not  be  great.  It  should  be  long  enough  to  prevent  any  wave  at 
the  head.  Probably  a  base  of  100  feet,  with  a  suitable  widening  of  the 
upward  prolongations  of  the  side-walls,  would  accomplish  the  purpose. 

The  steepest  natural  slopes  on  the  Ohio  are  found  when  the  river  is  at 
its  lowest  stage.  At  Horsetail,  5  miles  below  Pittsburgh,  there  is  a  fall 
of  1  foot  in  461  feet ;  at  Headman’s  Island,  14  miles  below,  a  fall  of  1  foot 
in  513;  at  the  Twin  Islands,  85  miles  below,  1  foot  in  781;  and  at  the 
Trap,  11  miles  below,  1  foot  in  800.  All  of  these  slopes  are  much  more 
gentle  than  the  gentlest  suggested  for  the  lower  inclined  plane  of  the 
chute. 

Narrow  sluices  for  passage  through  permanent  dams  were  in  general 
use  in  France  prior  to  the  invention  of  the  present  system  of  movable 
dams.  In  order  to  throw  as  much  light  as  possible  on  this  vexed  ques¬ 
tion  of  inclined  planes  I  have  made  the  following  translations  in  regard 
to  sluices  from  the  best  French  authorities  on  this  subject.  The  one  that 
follows  is  from  Minard’s  u  Navigation  des  Rivieres  et  des  Ganaux .” 

The  width  of  sluices  in  the  narrowest  part  generally  exceeds  that  of  a  boat  by  from 
15  inches  to  2  feet  on  each  side.  It  ought  to  be  even  greater  for  sluices  whose  side- walls 
are  parallel,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  entrance  of  boats.  [The  plates  show  the  width  of 
a  large  sluice  to  be  about  40  feet.] 

Sluices  have  been  made  for  a  fall  of  from  2  to  4  feet.  The  latter  are  dangerous  to 
navigation,  and  to  the  solidity  of  the  works.  It  is  necessary  to  wait  before  passing 
boats  through  until  the  discharge  has  greatly  lessened  the  fall. 

The  flows  of  sluices  are  from  23  to  33  feet  in  length.  The  side-walls  may  be  longer. 
It  is  advisable  that  they  should  not  be  parallel,  and  that  the  pass  should  widen  out  at 
each  end,  in  order  to  guide  the  boat  and  to  prevent  it  from  striking  violently  against 
the  walls.  It  is  likewise  advisable  to  terminate  the  side-walls  by  wood- work  exten¬ 
sions  which  will  deaden  the  shock. 

By  considering  the  different  circumstances  of  the  passage  of  boats  through  sluices, 
we  can  determine  how  to  arrange  the  dimensions  of  the  latter. 

When  a  boat  descends  freely  through  a  sluice,  it  experiences  a  more  or  less  violent  com¬ 
motion  when  it  strikes  the  gyratory  counter-current  which  is  usually  found  at  the  foot  of 
a  rapid,  and  in  which  lightly-laden  boats  may  even  remain  in  equilibrium,  pushed  from 
behind  and  held  back  in  front. 

Thus  in  January,  1834,  a  large  empty  abandoned  boat  was  carried  in  a  flood  of 
the  Correze  on  to  the  top  of  the  weir  of  the  Brives  dam.  It  was  precipitated  to  the 
foot  of  the  cataract,  where  it  stopped  ;  it  remained  there  more  than  15  hours,  making 
short  movements  backwards  and  forwards,  and  battering  down  the  masonry  of  the 

dam. 


4 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


Also  in  November,  1834,  having  learned  from  an  engineer  that  a  skiff  could  remain,  as 
it  were,  in  suspense  on  the  rapid  of  Saint-Maur-sur-Marue  sluice,  I  went  there  with 
him  ;  we  ascended  the  current,  which  flowed  through  the  sluice,  in  a  sail-boat,  com¬ 
pleting  our  trip  through  the  sluice  by  having  the  boat  hauled  into  the  cataract  ;  on 
getting  there  we  found  that  the  boat,  whose  sail  was  lowered,  remained  almost  at  rest,  its 
bow  in  the  current,  and  its  stern  supported  by  the  wave  of  the  counter-current.  An  occa¬ 
sional  stroke  of  the  oar  kept  the  boat  in  line  with  the  current  and  prevented  it  from 
moving  sideways.  We  allowed  it  to  remain  in  this  position  for  an  hour,  and  we  had 
much  difficulty  in  extricating  ourselves  from  it. 

With  an  instrument  hurriedly  made,  I  found  that  the  thickness  of  the  layer  of  counter- 
current  was  only  about  3  inches  ;  the  variations  of  the  current  made  it  very  difficult  to 
make  this  measurement ;  the  whirl  was  13  inches  in  diameter. 

The  total  fall  was  14  inches ;  the  foot  of  the  cataract  was  11  inches  lower  than  the 
level  of  the  lower  pool ;  the  velocity  of  the  current,  at  the  position  of  the  boat,  was  at 
least  7\  feet  per  second;  the  skiff,  holding  three  persons,  drew  7  inches  amidships. 
Fig.  46  shows  the  course  followed  by  a  floating  body  thrown  in  above  the  rapid. 

The  counter-current  at  the  lower  ends  of  sluices  is  analogous  to  that  which  we  have 
examined  in  the  over-falls  of  weirs ;  but  the  nearness  of  the  side-walls  modifies  it  some¬ 
what.  This  effect  is  more  or  less  moderated  as  the  fall  is  lessened. 

When  a  boat  already  on  an  incline  corresponding  to  the  surface  of  the  water  meets 
the  whirl,  which  is  from  1  foot  to  If  feet  in  height,  it  is  checked  in  front  and  strongly 
pushed  in  the  rear;  the  result  of  these  opposing  forces  is  to  incline  it  still  more,  and 
to  cause  the  bow  to  plunge.  It  is  then  desirable  that  the  floor  should  be  as  low  and  as 
short  as  possible,  and  it  is  even  well  to  make  an  artificial  excavation  at  the  lower  end. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  desirable  that  the  side-walls  should  be  long  enough  to  hold 
the  water,  and  to  reduce  the  slope  by  lengthening  it.  They  may  therefore  be  prolonged 
beyond  the  floor.  It  then  becomes  indispensable  to  build  them  on  piles,  the  principal 
effect  of  the  fall  being  a  great  scouring  at  the  foot. 

In  fact,  the  removal  and  replacing  of  the  beams  or  needles,  the  hauling  of  a  boat  up 
through  the  sluice,  and  the  waiting  until  the  current  has  moderated,  will  necessitate  the 
opening  of  the  sluice  for  three  or  four  hours,  during  which  time  a  violent  current  acts 
on  the  bottom.  Therefore,  the  prolongations  of  the  side-walls  beyond  the  floor  are  as 
much  exposed  to  undermining  as  the  piers  of  a  bridge.  It  is  therefore  necessary,  unless 
the  bottom  is  of  rock,  to  surround  them  with  deeply-driven  piles  and  sheeting-piles. 

This  tendency  to  scouring  is  very  great ;  it  would  be  useless  to  oppose  it.  Exten¬ 
sions  of  the  floor,  besides  injuring  boats,  would,  sooner  or  later,  be  carried  away. 

The  sole  of  the  pass  is  not  vertically  undermined  in  the  beginning ;  the  soil,  even 
when  it  is  moderately  firm,  is  at  first  cut  away  on  a  very  steep  slope  near  the  pass,  and 
then  on  a  gentler  slope ;  so  that  the  maximum  of  depth  is  generally  found  at  from  25 
to  40  feet  from  the  end  of  the  sole  ;  but  afterward  the  scouring  action  travels  backward 
to  just  under  the  sole,  in  consequence  of  a  whirl  with  horizontal  axis,  which  uplifts  the 
wooden  platform  with  which  these  soles  are  sometimes  terminated.  It  is  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  this  eddy  that  we  sometimes  find  that,  in  artificial  deepenings  made  with  a 
vertical  fall  just  beyond  the  sole,  the  current  has  brought  back  a  part  of  the  excavated 
material  and  has  formed  a  slope  beginning  at  the  lower  end  of  the  sole. 

The  depth  of  the  scour,  and  the  distance  to  which  it  extends,  vary  with  the  fall  aud 
the  nature  of  the  bottom,  whose  hardness  finally  yields  in  the  course  of  time.  Do  we 
not  see  very  hard  granite  rocks  wasted  and  worn  away  under  the  natural  falls  of  riv¬ 
ers  ?  It  seems,  in  fact,  that  the  deepening  ought  to  increase  until,  in  consequence  of  the 
excavation,  there  will  be  such  great  masses  of  water  to  be  put  in  motion  as  to  use  up 
a  part  of  the  quantity  of  action  caused  by  the  fall ;  in  a  word,  the  regimen  of  the  cat¬ 
aract  must  become  established,  like  that  of  a  less  rapid  current. 

In  the  Cours  de  Constructions  of  MM.  Sgauzin  and  Reibell  are  some 
remarks  on  the  sluices  formerly  so  largely  used  in  France  before  the 
invention  of  movable  dams,  from  which  I  extract  the  following  para¬ 
graphs  as  pertinent  to  the  question  before  us : 

The  size  of  sluices  is  limited  by  the  method  employed  in  closing  them,  which  is  very 
variable  ;  there  are  sluices  varying  in  width  from  13  to  26,  and  even  to  43  feet,  depend¬ 
ing  upon  the  dimensions  of  the  boats,  the  violence  of  the  floods,  &c. 

The  width  of  opening  of  sluices  for  the  passage  of  floods,  and  for  the  transit  of  rafts 
or  loose  logs,  varies  from  10  to  26  feet  in  sluices  now  existing. 

Their  soles  are  generally  placed  on  a  level  with  the  bed  of  the  river  above  the  dam, 
and  they  connect  with  the  bed  below  the  dam  by  a  slope.  In  this  way  sluices  for  dis¬ 
charge  can  also  be  used  for  the  passage  of  boats.  The  bottoms  of  these  sluices,  in  soils 
that  will  wash,  should  be  protected  by  a  sole  with  a  guard-sole  below,  as  has  been  in¬ 
dicated  for  passes  always  open. 

The  width  of  these  passes  depends  on  the  maximum  widths  of  the  boats.  *  *  * 

The  sluices  used  for  navigation  have  their  side  walls  prolonged  much  farther  down 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES.  5 

stream,  in  order  to  guide  the  boats  and  especially  to  make  more  gentle  the  curvilinear 
slope  of  double  curvature  which  connects  the  upper  pool  with  the  lower. 

To  still  more  lessen  this  slope,  the  sluice  is  opened  a  quarter  or  a  half  hour  before  the 
passage  of  boats,  in  either  direction,  although  this  often  causes  an  injurious  lower¬ 
ing  of  the  water  in  the  upper  pool.  It  has  been  recommended  that  the  side-walls 
should  have  unequal  length  down  stream,  in  order  to  diminish  the  boils  and  waves 
which  are  formed  where  the  sluice- water  meets  that  which  has  fallen  over  the  dam. 

The  construction  of  the  sole  of  a  navigable  sluice  is  surrounded  with  difficulties ;  if 
it  is  much  prolouged  on  a  straight  slope  downward,  there  is  reason  to  fear  that  the 
boat  in  its  oscillations  will  strike  it  ;  if  it  is  made  very  short,  there  may  result  serious 
scours  at  the  foot  when  the  river-bottom  is  not  firm. 

Although  the  sluices  above  described  differ  in  many  particulars  from 
the  inclined  planes  proposed  for  use  in  connection  with  the  Brunot  pon¬ 
ton,  they  yet  are  sufficiently  alike  to  enable  us  to  get  some  valuable 
information  from  the  experience  obtained  by  their  use  during  many 
centuries.  Navigable  sluices  were  used  on  the  Yonne  as  far  back  as  the 
reign  of  Louis  IX,  (1226-1270,)  as  an  ordinance  of  this  king  is  extant 
forbidding  the  construction  of  anything  in  the  bed  of  this  river  that 
might  hinder  navigation.  In  February,  1415,  Charles  VI  ordered  that 
all  sluices  should  be  24  feet  in  width,  which  decree  was  re-affirmed  in 
1520,  1598,  1669,  and  1673.  In  1720  the  number  of  dams  with  sluices  on 
the  Upper  Yonne  was  25,  and  on  the  Lower  Yonne  there  were  10.  These 
sluices  were  gradually  widened  and  improved,  but  the  greatest  change 
was  inaugurated  in  1835,  when  the  first  Poriee  needle-dam  was  built. 
By  this  invention  the  width  of  sluices  was  increased  to  72  feet,  thus, 
changing  them  into  what  are  now  known  as  navigable  passes.  In  1860, 
a  still  further  advance  was  made  by  the  substitution  of  Chanoine  wickets 
for  needle-dams.  This  substitution  is  now  complete,  and  represents  the 
greatest  advance  thus  far  made  in  movable  dams. 

The  Chanoine  system,  which  this  brief  history  shows  to  have  been  the 
culmination  of  the  experience  of  centuries,  is  the  one  which  I  desire  to 
put  into  operation  on  the  Ohio. 

I  conclude,  from  the  descriptions  quoted  above,  that  there  might  be 
serious  trouble  in  the  use  of  inclined  planes  from  the  dangerous  scour 
likely  to  take  place  at  the  foot  of  these  planes,  and  also  from  the  waves 
and  whirls  which  would  endanger  the  safety  of  barges.  The  difficulties 
'  which  were  found  on  small  rivers,  and  with  small  bodies  of  water,  would 
probably  be  increased  with  larger  rivers  and  wider  sluices. 

The  only  French  systems  that  use  the  power  of  the  stream  for  working 
the  movable  parts  are  theGirard,  the  Desfontaiues,  and  the  Krantz.  None 
of  these  can  be  used  for  a  pass  whose  sole  is  on  a  level  with  the  bottom 
of  the  river,  and  in  this  respect  they  are  like  the  Brunot  system.  It 
therefore  follows,  that,  as  far  as  our  present  knowledge  extends,  the  use 
of  sluices  with  gates  that  can  be  maneuvered  rapidly,  both  for  opening 
and  closing,  likewise  necessitates  the  use  of  an  inclined  plane.  It  is 
proper  to  add  that  the  use  of  inclined  planes  for  chutes  or  passes  in 
weirs  is  unknown  in  France  ;  the  three  French  systems  mentioned  above 
being  only  used  on  weirs  to  control  the  levels  of  the  pools  by  regulating 
the  discharge  of  the  river  at  the  site  of  the  dam. 

3.  The  use  of  permanent  dams  or  weirs  equipped  with  the  Brunot  gate 
would  compel  all  up-stream  navigation  to  go  through  the  locks.  Very 
high  floods,  in  which  it  might  be  possible  to  go  over  the  dams,  occur  so 
seldom  in  the  upper  part  of  the  river,  that  they  need  not  be  considered. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  inclined-plane  system  should  prove  to  work 
well,  it  may  be  possible  to  maintain  a  continuous  down-stream  naviga¬ 
tion  through  the  chute  at  all  times.  This  would  be  a  decided  advantage 
if  attainable.  As  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  make  an  exact  comparison 
between  the  proposed  Brunot  system  and  others,  to  assume  a  precise 


6 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


case  for  comparison,  I  have  taken  the  dam  at  or  near  McKee’s  Rocks, 
being  the  proposed  site  for  the  first  dam  on  the  Ohio  River. 

The  French  system  requires  all  navigation  both  up  and  down  stream 
to  pass  through  the  locks,  when  there  is  less  than  6  feet  of  natural  navi¬ 
gation,  but  at  all  other  times  the  river  is  entirely  unobstructed.  The 
main  question  therefore  is,  which  of  the  two  systems  will  give  most  help 
to  navigation  ? 

I  am  constrained  to  believe  that  the  towing  interest  would  prefer  to 
have  the  river  kept  as  much  as  possible  in  its  natural  state,  and  that 
they  would  consider  it  hazardous  to  be  always  under  the  necessity  of 
running  a  chute  or  going  through  the  lock  when  descending  the  river. 
Experience  has  shown  that  for  dams  of  6  feet  lift,  such  as  are  proposed 
in  the  Ohio,  a  rise  of  15  feet  in  the  natural  river  is  required  in  order  to 
give  a  depth  of  7  feet  over  the  combs.  This  depth  would  allow  the  safe 
passage  of  boats  drawing  6  feet  of  water. 

Confining  ourselves  for  the  present  to  the  upper  part  of  the  river,  where 
alone  the  actual  work  of  construction  is  recommended  at  present,  we 
find  from  the  records  of  the  Pittsburgh  gauge,  as  kept  during  the  17 
years  between  1854  and  1871,  (see  report  ot  Chief  of  Engineers  for  1871, 
page  399,)  that  the  average  duration  of  a  stage  of  15  feet  or  more  is  but 
10  days  per  annum.  This  is  very  irregularly  distributed  as  follows  : 

Days. 


January .  1.1 

February .  1. 1 

March . . .  2.  4 

April .  2.  4 

May .  0.  8 

June .  0.5 

July . .  0 

August . . .  0 

September . .  0.  2 

October . . 0. 1 

November . . .  0.4 

December . .  0.  9 


Total  for  the  year .  9.  9 

This  shows  that  no  dependence  can  be  placed  on  passing  over  the 
dams.  The  times  when  such  a  feat  is  possible  are  so  short  in  themselves,  ' 
and  they  are  so  irregularly  distributed  through  the  year,  that  the  as¬ 
sistance  which  navigation  would  receive  from  this  source  is  too  slight 
for  serious  consideration.  We  may,  therefore,  come  to  the  conclusion 
that,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  head  of  the  Ohio,  the  permanent-dam  system 
would  require  all  ascending  boats  to  go  through  the  locks  and  all  de¬ 
scending  boats  to  go  through  the  chute. 

On  the  French  plan,  the  river  is  entirely  open  whenever  there  is  6 
feet  and  over  on  the  marks.  Examining  the  record  previously  quoted, 
we  find  the  following  average  durations  of  a  stage  of  6  feet  or  more : 


January 
February  . 
March  .... 

April . 

May . 

June . . 

July . . 

August  . .  . 
September 
October. .. 
November 
December . 


Days. 

16.9 

16.3 
26.0 

26.4 
19.7 

9.4 
5.2 

4.5 
5.2 
5.0 

10.2 

18.5 


Total  for  the  year 


163.3 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


7 


We  thus  find  that  on  the  French  plan  we  will  have  an  open  river, 
with  6  feet  or  more  of  water  for  navigation,  for  nine-twentieths  of  the 
year.  During  the  other  eleven-twentieths,  navigation  in  both  directions 
must  pass  through  the  locks.  Therefore  I  conclude  that  the  French 
system  would  better  provide  for  navigation  on  the  Ohio  than  the  sys¬ 
tem  of  permanent  dams.  The  same  course  of  investigation,  however, 
would  prove  the  exact  opposite  on  small  rivers,  that  seldom  have  a  suf¬ 
ficiency  of  water  for  a  natural  navigation. 

4.  The  effect  of  permanent  dams  is  always  to  cause  a  shoaling  above 
the  dams.  As  a  general  rule  this  shoaling  is  insignificant  in  amount, 
and  does  not  hinder  navigation.  It  is  equally  true,  however,  that  in 
rivers  heavily  laden  with  sand,  such  as  those  in  the  East  Indies,  the 
pools  above  dams  always  fill  up  even  with  the  combs  of  the  dams.  I 
therefore  conclude,  that  in  the  Ohio  River  above  the  falls,  permanent 
dams  would  not  cause  any  injurious  shoaling,  but  that  below  the  falls 
they  probably  would  do  so.  As  this  shoaling  always  takes  place  in 
high  water,  these  effects  would  not  occur  with  movable  dams,  as  at  that 
stage  they  would  be  out  of  the  way.  Any  small  deposits  that  might 
occur  while  the  dams  were  up  would  be  swept  away  when  they  were 
down. 

5.  A  great  advantage  of  movable  over  permanent  dams  arises  from 
the  fact  that  the  great  strains  on  darns,  and  the  great  dangers  of  injury 
by  undermining  or  by  turning  the  abutments,  occur  during  floods,  at 
which  time  the  movable  dains  have  ceased  to  be  dams.  They  are  thus 
perfectly  safe  from  the  most  serious  source  of  danger  to  all  constructions 
placed  in  the  bed  of  a  river. 

These  reasons,  and  the  example  of  the  French,  who  are  the  best 
authorities  in  the  world  on  such  subjects,  have  caused  me  to  change  my 
half-formed  opinion  into  one  decidedly  in  favor  of  movable  dams. 

NAVIGABLE  PASS  AND  WEIR. 

The  next  question  to  be  decided  is  the  width  of  the  navigable  pass. 
I  know  of  no  serious  objection  to  making  this  pass  as  wide  as  the  nav¬ 
igation  interests  may  desire,  but  as  400  feet  is  considered  sufficient  to 
allow  a  safe  passage  between  bridge-piers,  I  have  considered  it  unneces¬ 
sary  to  give  a  greater  width  to  the  pass.  The  reasons  why  the  whole 
river  is  not  made  a  navigable  pass  are  as  follows :  The  pass-wickets  are 
very  large  and  heavy,  and  are  not  easy  to  handle.  It  is  therefore  desir¬ 
able  to  reduce  their  number  as  much  as  possible.  This  can  be  done  by 
making  a  part  of  the  dam  of  smaller  wickets  on  a  foundation  raised 
above  the  bed  of  the  river.  This  method  of  construction  likewise  gives 
greater  facilities  in  managing  small  rises,  which  if  allowed  to  discharge 
by  overflow  above  would  raise  the  level  of  the  upper  pool  too  high,  and 
yet  are  not  sufficient  to  justify  the  opening  of  the  pass.  By  dropping 
some  of  the  weir- wickets,  which  are  easily  managed,  the  rise  can  be 
passed  without  difficulty  and  the  wickets  can  readily  be  raised  again. 
On  the  other  hand,  when  the  whole  dam  is  down  the  weir  partly 
obstructs  the  water-way,  and  may  make  too  great  a  current  through 
the  pass  if  the  latter  be  too  narrow.  The  widest  French  passes 
on  the  Upper  Seine  are  from  180  to  214  feet.  They  are  generally  a  little 
more  than  40  per  cent,  of  the  width  of  the  river.  At  the  selected  site 
for  the  first  dam  on  the  Ohio  the  width  of  the  river,  exclusive  of  the 
area  required  for  the  lock  and  the  abutment,  is  1,200  feet.  If  we  give 
the  pass  a  width  of  40  per  cent,  of  the  whole  width  of  the  river,  it  would 
be  480  feet  wide.  This  width,  however,  seems  greater  than  is  necessary* 


8 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


The  widths  of  coal-tows  seldom  exceed  125  feet  (or  a  front  of  5  barges,) 
and  as  the  width  between  the  channel-piers  of  the  Steubenville  bridge 
is  but  300  feet,  of  the  Bellaire  bridge  but  322  feet,  of  the  Parkersburg 
bridge  but  350  feet,  and  of  the  Newport  and  Cincinnati  bridge  400  feet, 
the  last-named  width  seems  ample  for  a  navigable  pass.  In  order,  how¬ 
ever,  to  provide  against  undue  contraction  of  the  water-way,  the  half  of 
the  weir  adjacent  to  the  navigable  pass  should  have  its  sole  at  the  level 
of  the  low- water  line,  the  sole  of  the  other  half  of  the  weir  being  at  the 
usual  level  of  two  feet  above  low  water.  This  is  the  method  recom¬ 
mended  by  the  latest  French  authorities  for  very  wide  rivers,  and  for 
those  for  which  the  usual  width  of  navigable  pass  causes  too  great  a 
velocity  through  the  pass  when  the  dam  is  down.  On  the  highest  level 
of  the  weir  it  will  probably  be  very  advantageous  to  use  Desfontaines’s 
drum-wickets,  or  the  Brunot  ponton.  The  question  of  choice  between 
the  two  can,  however,  be  left  for  future  study,  as  in  any  event  tli£  dams 
cannot  be  built  until  the  locks  are  finished.  In  making  the  estimate 
which  accompanies  this  report,  I  have  thought  it  best  to  assume  that 
the  whole  dam  will  be  composed  of  Chanoine  wickets,  as  these  will  un¬ 
doubtedly  accomplish  our  object.  If  the  other  system  should  be  thought 
better  for  the  highest  level  of  the  weir,  the  estimate  will  still  be  substan¬ 
tially  correct. 

In  my  last  annual  report  I  only  estimated  for  a  width  of  navigable 
pass  of  250  feet.  Since  then  I  have  concluded,  after  consulting  with 
those  interested  in  Ohio  Biver  navigation,  and  studying  first  location  for 
a  dam,  the  surveys  for  which  were  then  in  progress,  that  it  would  be 
better  to  widen  the  pass  to  400  feet. 

LOCK. 

Experience  in  France  on  navigations  similar  to  what  is  proposed  for 
the  Ohio,  shows  that  it  is  greatly  to  the  advantage  of  navigators  for  the 
locks  to  be  large  enough  to  pass  ascendiug  or  descending  fleets  at  one 
lockage.  An  average  coal-fleet  has  ten  barges,  (130  by  25  feet,)  one 
fuel-flat,  (100  by  22  feet,)  and  one  steamboat,  (230  by  48  feet.)  The 
barges  could  pass  two  abreast  if  the  locks  were  52  feet  wide,  three 
abreast  if  they  were  78  feet,  and  four  abreast  if  they  were  103  feet.  The 
first-named  width,  however,  is  too  narrow  for  the  usual  packet  steam¬ 
boats,  which  require  from  60  to  80  feet,  and  the  last-named  is  too  wide 
to  be  closed  by  the  ordinary  lock-gate.  The  width  of  lock  must  there¬ 
fore  necessarily  be  78  feet  in  order  to  accommodate  all  classes  of  traffic 
in  the  best  manner. 

To  hold  such  a  fleet  as  I  have  described  above,  will  necessitate  an  avail¬ 
able  length  (from  the  lower  side  of  the  mi  ter- wall  of  the  upper  gates  to 
the  recesses  of  the  lower  gates  )  of  628  feet.  The  length  between  hollow 
quoins  will  therefore  be  634  feet,  and  the  total  length  of  the  river- wall, 
from  head  to  foot,  will  be  770  feet. 

This  length  may  seem  excessive,  but  the  advantage  of  passing  a  fleet 
at  one  lockage  is  very  great,  and  the  increase  of  cost  is  not  in  propor¬ 
tion  to  the  length  of  the  lock.  The  most  expensive  parts  of  a  lock  are 
the  gates  and  the  masonry  around  them,  and  they  cost  the  same  in  all 
locks  of  the  same  width  and  lift,  regardless  of  their  length.  The  differ¬ 
ence  between  a  short  and  a  long  lock,  of  the  same  width  and  lift,  is 
only  the  cost  of  the  extra  length  of  chamber-wall,  and  this  is  the  cheap¬ 
est  masonry  about  the  lock.  The  fleets  on  the  Seine  are  somewhat 
smaller  than  those  on  the  Ohio,  although  their  larger  barges  have  al¬ 
most  exactly  the  same  dimensions  as  Ohio  coal-barges.  To  pass  one  of 
these  fleets  at  a  single  lockage,  the  lock-chambers  on  the  Upper  Seine 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


9 


have  a  width  of  40  feet,  and  an  available  length  of  from  591  to  GI5 
feet. 

In  my  last  annual  report,  I  recommended  that  the  lock  should  be 
divided  into  two  parts  by  a  pair  of  middle  gates,  in  order  that  single 
steamboats  and  small  tows  might  be  accommodated  without  using  so 
large  an  amount  of  water  as  would  be  required  to  fill  the  whole  lock. 

After  the  detailed  plans  of  the  lock  were  prepared,  I  found  that  the 
extra  cost  of  these  gates,  and  of  the  additional  culverts  that  must  go 
with  them,  would  not  be  justified  by  the  saving  in  the  consumption  of 
water.  The  low- water  discharge  of  the  Ohio  was  found  by  Mr.  Roberts, 
my  predecessor,  to  be  1,600  cubic  feet  per  second.  This  is  sufficient  to 
fill  the  whole  lock  in  3J  minutes.  As  the  lock  would  not  be  used  of- 
tener  than  once  in  15  minutes  for  single  steamboats,  or  once  in  20  min¬ 
utes  for  fleets,  we  evidently  have  an  abundance  of  water  to  spare  even 
in  the  lowest  stages.  The  leakage  through  the  dam  can  be  reduced  as 
much  as  may  be  desired  by  the  usual  expedient  of  laying  planks  over 
the  intervals  between  the  wickets. 

I  have  not  estimated  for  a  double  lock,  as  I  think  that  the  large 
single  one  proposed  will  answer  every  purpose.  It  will  be  just  as  well 
adapted  to  the  needs  of  commerce  when  several  boats  are  moving  in 
the  same  direction,  but  it  will  not  be  so  useful  when  boats  moving  in 
opposite  directions  meet  at  a  lock.  To  balance  this  disadvantage  we 
have  the  greater  facilities  which  it  offers  to  large  tows,  and,  besides,  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  when  navigation  is  naturally  most  active 
the  dam  is  down,  the  river  is  entirely  open  to  navigation,  and  the  lock 
is  not  needed.  On  the  Seine  it  has  not  been  found  necessary  to  double 
any  of  the  locks.  The  usual  lift  of  the  lock,  when  both  pools  are  at  their 
normal  levels,  will  be  6  feet,  but  the  walls  have  been  calculated  to  resist 
the  greatest  pressures  that  can  come  on  them  when  the  lock  is  either 
full  or  emptied  for  repairs. 

ESTIMATE. 


One  river -lock,  with  lift  of  6  feet,  6  feet  on  lower  miter-sill,  628 feet  of  available  length,  and  78 

feel  of  width  in  the  clear. 


cn 

O 

o 


3-P 
O  .O 
w  3 
P  ri 


Eiver-wall,  face . 

coping . 

backing . 

Land --wall,  face . 

coping . 

backing  . 

Mi  ter- walls . 

Upper-wing  wall,  face . 

coping . 

backing  . 

Lower-wing  wall,  face . 

coping . 

backing  . 

Coffer-dam  and  pumping . 

Hock-excavation,  10,000  cubic  yards . 

Lock-gates,  4  leaves . 

Wickets  with  apparatus,  20 . 

Maneuvering  needle-dam  at  head  of  lock . 

House  for  lock  and  dam  tenders . 

Engineering — engineer  and  assistant  2  years. 


Total . 

Contingencies,  10  per  cent 


Gub.  yds. 
2,  434 
312 


Cub.  yds. 


Cub.  yds. 


2,  470 


1, 172 
238 


230 

"20 


2,  818 


60 


40 


15 


$15  00 
15  00 
6  50 
15  00 
15  00 
6  50 
15  00 
8  50 
15  00 
6  50 
8  50 
15  00 
6  50 


2  00 

4,  000  00 
200  00 

1,  250  00 

5,  000  00 
4,  000  00 


Total  for  one  lock  on  rock-foundation 


$36,  510 
4,  680 

16,  055 

17,  580 

3,  570 

18,  317 
3,450 

510 
300 
780 
340 
225 
715 
6,  000 
20,  000 
16, 000 

4,  000 
1,250 

5,  000 

8,  000 


163. 282 
16,  328 


179,610 


10 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


This  estimate  is  $20,000  less  than  the  rough  estimate  ($200,000)  which 
I  made  in  my  last  annual  report.  A  large  portion  of  this  saving  is  due 
to  the  suppression  of  the  middle  gates,  with  their  attendant  culverts, 
and  enlargement  of  the  side-walls. 

At  the  site  selected  for  the  first  dam,  the  river  has  a  rock-bed,  but  as 
we  approached  the  left  bank  this  bank  is  overlain  by  a  layer  of  gravel 
and  sand.  The  estimate  which  follows  will  therefore  only  apply  to  cases 
of  similar  foundations. 

As  stated  before,  the  pass  is  closed  by  Ohanoine  wickets  having  12 
feet  vertical  height  above  the  sill  of  the  pass,  and  placed  at  a  distance 
apart,  measured  from  center  to  center  of  wicket,  of  3.61  feet.  These  are 
the  dimensions  used  at  the  Port-a-P Anglais  dam,  and  though  they  ap¬ 
pear  awkward  when  given  in  Euglish  feet,  it  has  been  thought  best  to 
preserve  them  for  the  present.  There  will  be  no  difficulty  in  slightly 
changing  them  when  the  actual  work  of  construction  is  begun.  The 
interval  between  wickets  is  0.33  of  a  foot,  or  4  inches. 

All  the  coffer-dams  for  which  estimates  are  submitted  are  built  to  a 
height  of  8  feet  above  the  low-water  line,  so  that  they  will  not  be  sub¬ 
merged  until  there  is  10  feet  of  water  in  the  channel. 

Navigable  pass  giving  an  opening  of  400  feet  and  having  its  sill  2  feet  below  low  ivater. 


COFFER-DAM,  PER  RUNNING  FOOT. 


Material. 

Price. 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

String-pieces . 

$35  per  1,000  feet.. 
. do  .  . . 

85  feet . . 

$2  98 
5  25 

Sheeting-planks . 

150  feet . 

Two-inch  round-iron  ties  . . . . . . 

3  cents  per  pound . 
50  cts.  per  cub.  yd. 

210  lbs.. 

6  30 

Gravel . . . . . . . . . 

6  yards  . 

3  00 

T.ahor _ _ _ _ _ _ 

5  00 

Cost,  of  one,  rrmninp’  foot  of  oofPor-rln,m  .  _  _  _ 

22  53 

Pumping,  per  running  foot. 

To  make  an  approximation  of  the  cost  of  this  service,  it  is  necessary 
to  make  some  assumptions.  At  the  best,  this  expense  must,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  be  indeterminate. 

We  will  assume  that  work  can  only  be  attempted  during  a  period  of 
five  months,  say  from  June  15  to  November  15,  that  beiug  the  usual 
period  of  lowest  water ;  that  it  will  take  two  such  seasons  to  complete 
the  dam  ;  and  that  the  yearly  depreciation  of  the  pumping-apparatus 
will  be  10  per  cent.,  and  its  yearly  repairs  the  same. 

A  10-inch  centrifugal  pump,  with  15-horse-power  steam-engine,  will  cost - $1,  500  00 


A  flat-boat  for  carrying  it .  800  00 


Total  cost  of  plant .  2, 300  00 

Yearly  cost  of  plant,  depreciation,  and  repairs,  20  per  cent .  460  00 

Cost  of  plant  for  two  years . .  920  00 

One  engineer,  ten  months,  at  $90  per  month .  900  00 

Two  deck-hands,  ten  months,  at  $90  per  month .  900  00 

Coal,  three  hundred  bushels  per  month  for  ten  months,  at  ten  cents  per 
bushel .  300  00 


Cost  of  pumping  for  two  seasons,  or  for  building  1,200  feet  of  dam .  3,  020  00 

Cost  of  pumping,  per  running  foot  of  dam .  2  50 

As  this  work  is  subject  to  extraordinary  accidents  by  floods,  it  would  be  bet¬ 
ter  to  put  it  at . . . .  3  00 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


11 


Foundation ,  per  running  foot. 


Material. 

Price. 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

Rock-excavation . per  cub.  yd. . 

Cut-stone  masonry . . . . . do . 

$2  00 
15  00 

6  50 
45  00 

4.  5  yards 
1. 13  yards 
1.  0  yards 
34.0  feet.. 

$9  00 
16  95 
6  50 
1  57 
5  00 

Rubble . do . 

Coat,  of  one  running  foot  of  foundation . . . 

39  02 

Appurtenances  of  the  sole  per  one  wicket  and  per  running  foot. 


Name  of  part. 

No. 

Material. 

Quantity. 

Price. 

Cost. 

Heurter  and  slide  . . . . . ... 

1 

Wrought  iron. .. 
. do . 

480  lbs ... . 

10  cts.  per  lb  . . 
10  cts.  per  lb  .. 
10  cts.  per  lb  .. 
40  cts.  per  lb  . . 

$48  00 

9  80 

Tripping-rod _ 

1 

98  lbs  .... 

Guides . . . . . 

2 

. do . 

42  lbs  .... 

4  20 

Roller _ _ _ _ _ 

1 

Bronze . 

26  lbs  ... . 

10  40 

Cost  of  appurtenances  per  wicket . . 

72  40 

Coat  of  annnrtenaneea  nor  rnnninp-  foot, _ 

20  55, 

Labor  _  _ _  _  _  _  _  _  _  . 

5  00 

Total  ner  running  foot,. .  _ 

25  55 

Wicket,  total  cost  and  cost  per  running  foot. 


Name  of  part. 

No. 

Material. 

Quantity. 

Price. 

Cost. 

TTorae  _  _ _ _ _ 

1 

Wrought  iron. .. 
. do . 

450  lbs ... . 

10  cts.  per  lb  . . 
10  cts.  per  lb  . . 
7  cts.  per  lb  . . 
10  cts.  per  lb  . . 
7  cts.  per  lb  . . 
5  cts.  per  lb  . . 
$50  per  1,000  ft. 

$45  00 
13  30 

Anchoring-rods . . . 

2 

133  lbs ... . 

Anchoring-disk . 

1 

Cast  iron . 

80  lbs _ 

5  60 

Prop . 

1 

Wrought  iron. .. 
Cast  iron  . 

600  lbs  .... 

60  00 

Journal-boxes . 

4 

220  lbs ... . 

14  50 

Bolts  and  nuts . 

30 

Wrought  iron. .. 
Lumber . 

330  lbs ... . 

16  50- 

Panel . . . . . . 

1 

409  feet . . . 

20  45 

Coat,  of  wicket _ 

175  35 

Coat  of  wicket  per  running  foot _  _ _ _ _ _ _ 

48  57 

LOW  WEIR. 

Sill  at  level  of  low  water. 

The  coffer-dam  required  will  he  identical  with  the  one  employed  for  the  navigable 
pass,  consequently  the  same  estimate  will  hold  good  in  this  case. 

Foundation  per  running  foot. 


Material. 

Price. 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

Concrete  . . . . . 

$5.00  per  cubic  yard . 

0.75  cubic  yard . 

$3  75 

Gravel . 

50  per  cubic  yard . 

0.80  cubic  yard . . . 

40 

Cut-stone . 

15.00  per  cubic  yard . 

1  cubic  yard . . 

15  00 

Boards — inner  sheeting  for  con¬ 

30.00  per  1,000  feet  . . . . 

1 2  feet _ _ _ _ _ 

36 

crete-frame. 

Uprights  for  same . 

30.00  per  1,000  feet . 

5  feet . . . . 

15 

Sills . 

45.00  per  1,000  feet  . . . 

34  feet . . 

1  57 

Riprap  . 

1.60  per  cubic  yard . 

1.22  cubic  yard . 

1  95 

Labor _  _ 

5  00 

Cost  of  one  running  foot  of  foundation . 

28  18 

The  cost  of  the  appurtenances  of  the  sole  and  of  the  wickets  will  be  five-sixths  of  the 
cost  of  the  similar  parts  of  the  navigable  pass.  They  will  therefore  be  as  follows  : 


Appurtenances  of  the  sole,  per  running  foot .  $21  29 

Wickets,  per  running  foot . . .  40  47 


12 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


HIGH  WEIR. 


Sill  2  feet  above  low  water.  Coffer-dam  same  as  for  the  low  weir.  Foundation  per  running 

foot. 


Material. 

Price. 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

Concrete . 

$5.00  per  cubic  yard 

l  25  cubic  yard 

$6  25 

Gravel . 

50  per  cubic  yard 

2  cubic  yards 

1  00 

Cut-stone . 

15.00  per  cubic  yard 

1  cubic  yard 

15  00 

Sills .  . 

45.00  per  1  000  feet 

34  feet 

1  57 

Biprap  . 

1.60  per  cubic  va.rd  _ 

3  cubic  yards 

4  80 

Labor . . 

5  00 

Cost  of  one  running  foot  of  foundation . . 

33  62 

The  costs  of  the  appurtenances  of  the  sole  and  of  the  wickets  will  be 
two-thirds  of  the  costs  of  the  similar  parts  belonging  to  the  navigable 
pass.  They  will  therefore  be  : 


Appurtenances  of  the  sole,  per  running  foot .  $17  03 

Wicket,  per  running  foot .  32  38 


PIERS. 

As  the  length  of  a  pier  is  the  same  as  the  width  of  the  pass,  the  cost  of 
its  foundations  per  running  foot  measured  in  the  direction  of  the  length 
of  the  dam  will  be  the  same  as  the  cost  of  the  same  length  of  foundation 
of  the  pass.  The  width  of  a  pier  being  11.48  feet,  it  will  only  be  neces¬ 
sary  to  multiply  the  cost  of  the  foundation  of  the  pass  per  running  foot 
by  11.48  to  obtain  the  cost  of  the  foundation  of  a  pier. 


Cost  of  foundation  of  one  pier  71.55x11.48  .  $821  39 

115.02  cubic  yards  of  cut-stone  masonry,  at  $15 .  1, 725  30 

101.56  cubic  yards  of  rubble-masonry,  at  $6.50  . . . .  660  14 

Maneuvering  capstan  for  tripping-rod .  1, 000  00 


Cost  of  one  pier .  4, 206  83 


ABUTMENT. 

The  abutment  is  located  at  the  shore  end  of  the  weir. 

Foundation  of  abutment. 


Material. 

Price. 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

Piles,  10'  long,  driven _ _ 

$4.20  each _ 

12  piles _ 

$50  40 
462  50 
150  00 

Sheeting-piles,  1 0'  long,  driven... 
Concrete _  .. 

3.70  each . 

5.00  ner  vard _  . 

125  sheeting-piles . 

30  yards . . . 

Cost  nf  frmndat.irm  r*f  abutment. 

662  90 

Superstructure  of  abutment. 


Material. 


Price. 


Quantity. 


Cost. 


Cut-stone  masonry .  $15  per  yard 

Concrete  backing’. .  5  per  yard 

Capstan  and  gearing . ' . 

Grading  bank,  paving  riprap,  &c . 


103.5  yards . 

87.17  yards . 

1  capstan  and  gearing. 


$1,  552  50 
430  85 
l,  000  00 
5,  000  00 


Cost  of  superstructure  of  abutment. 


7,  983  35 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


13 


SUMMARY. 

Having  thus  determined  the  cost  in  detail  of  each  part  of  the  dam, 
we  will  now  bring  them  together  in  order  to  determine  the  cost  in  the 
aggregate. 

Navigable  pass. 


Coffer-dam,  per  running  foot .  $22  53 

Pumping,  per  running  foot .  3  00 

Foundation,  per  running  foot .  39  02 

Appurtenances  of  the  sole,  per  running  foot .  25  55 

Wicket,  per  running  foot .  48  57 


Total,  per  running  foot  . .  138  67 

Cost  for  400  feet  of  width .  55, 468  00 

Low  weir. 

Coffer-dam,  per  running  foot .  $22  53 

Pumping,  per  running  foot .  3  00 

Foundation,  per  running  foot .  28  18 

Appurtenances  of  the  sole,  per  running  foot .  21  29 

Wicket,  per  running  foot .  40  47 


Total,  per  running  foot .  115  47 

Cost  of  400  feet  of  width . - .  46, 188  00 

High  weir. 

Coffer-dam,  per  running  foot .  $22  53 

Pumping,  per  running  foot .  3  00 

Foundation,  per  running  foot  . . . .  33  62 

Appurtenances  of  the  sole,  per  running  foot .  17  03 

Wicket,  per  running  foot .  32  38 


Total,  per  running  foot  .  108  56 

Cost  for  400  feet  of  width .  43,  424  00 

Abutment. 

Foundation . $662  90 

Superstructure .  7, 983  35 


Cost  of  abutment . . . . .  8, 646  25 


Gathering  together  the  costs  thus  determined  for  each  part  of  the 
dam,  and  neglecting  quantities  less  than  one  dollar,  we  have  the  follow¬ 
ing  : 


Navigable  pass .  $55,468 

Pier . .  4,207 

Low  weir .  46, 188 

Pier .  4,207 

High  weir .  43, 424 

Abutment .  8,  646 

Engineering  and  superintendence  two  years,  at  $6,000 .  12, 000 


Total . .  174,140 

Contingencies,  20  per  cent . . .  34, 828 


Total  estimate  of  cost  of  dam .  208, 968 


I  have  added  20  percent,  for  contingencies,  because  work  like  this,  in 
the  bed  of  a  large  river  liable  to  sudden  and  high  rises,  is  subject  to  in¬ 
juries  and  accidents  which  cannot  possibly  be  foreseen,  nor  can  they  be 
covered  by  an  estimate  except  in  this  way. 

The  site  selected  for  the  first  dam  on  the  Ohio  has  a  local  peculiarity 


14 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


which  makes  the  works  more  costly  than  they  would  be  at  many  other 
places.  The  profile  of  the  river  compels  the  location  of  the  dam  with 
one  end  abutting  on  Davis?s  Island.  This  necessitates  the  closing  of  the 
channel  back  of  this  island.  This  channel  is  420  feet  in  width,  and  the 
dam  must  be  built  up  to  the  same  level  as  the  normal  pool,  which  is  10 
feet  above  low  water.  It  is  proposed  to  build  a  dam  of  piles  and  coffer- 
work,  the  mass  of  the  dam  being  riprap  stone,  paved  on  top,  and  sup¬ 
ported  by  a  long  apron  of  riprap  interspersed  with  piles. 

The  down -stream  slope  of  the  top  of  the  dam  will  be  one  on  three.  The 
banks  above  and  below  the  dam  will  be  graded  and  paved,  and  will  have 
a  bank  of  riprap  at  the  foot  of  the  slope  for  protection  against  under¬ 
mining.  The  method  of  construction  thus  indicated  is  in  accordance 
with  the  best  French  methods. 

DAM  BEHIND  DAVIS’S  ISLAND. 

Cost  of  dam  per  running  foot. 


One  row  sheet-piling,  10'  long,  at  $4.75  per  running  foot,  driven .  $4  75 

40  feet  board  measure  caps,  at  $35 .  1  40 

28  feet  board-measure  longitudinal  stringers,  at  $35 .  98 

53£  feet  board-measure  transverse  ties,  at  $35 .  1  87 

3  piles,  driven,  at  $5 .  15  00 

3.7  cubic  yards  stone-paving,  at  $3.50 .  12  95 

12  cubic  yards  riprap,  at  $2  . .  24  00 

2  cubic  yards  gravel,  at  40  cents .  80 

Labor .  5  00 


Total  per  running  foot .  66  75 


Cost  for  dam  420  feet  in  length .  28, 035  00 

Bank  protection  above  and  below  dam. 

400  piles,  at  $5 . $2, 000  00 

925  cubic  yards  paving,  at  $2.50 .  2,  312  50 

500  cubic  yards  grading  bank,  at  20  cents .  100  00 

200  cubic  yards  riprap,  at  $2  .  400  00 


Total .  4,  812  50 


Total  cost  of  dam,  including  bank  protection .  32, 847  50 

TOTAL  COST  OF  DAM  NO.  1,  ON  THE  OltlO  RIVER,  INCLUDING  ALL  ACCESSORY  WORK. 

Lock .  $179, 610 

Dam .  208,968 

Auxiliary  dam  behind  Davis’s  Island . .  32,  847 


421, 425 

The  estimates  on  a  lock  and  dam  thus  far  given  presuppose  a  rock 
foundation.  In  case  we  should  be  compelled  to  build  on  gravel  the  pre¬ 
ceding  estimates  must  be  increased.  It  then  becomes  imperative  to 
give  the  lock  an  artificial  bottom  or  floor  of  concrete,  to  found  the  pass 
and  weirs  on  similar  beds  of  concrete,  and  to  guard  against  injurious 
filtrations  by  lines  of  sheet-piling. 

This  method  of  construction  is  expensive,  but  it  seems  to  be  the  only 
one  that  gives  thoroughly  reliable  results.  On  the  Monongahela  wooden 
floors  are  used,  but  they  are  frequently  out  of  repair,  and  their  weak¬ 
ness  is  constantly  endangering  the  safety  of  the  locks.  The  following 
extracts  from  Minard’s  Navigation  des  Rivieres  et  des  Canaux  show  the 
best  foreign  practice  in  such  cases : 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


15 


Soil  incompressible,  but  liable  to  scour. 

Sands,  gravel,  &c.,  found  directly  on  the  soil,  and  give  the  floors  a  thickness  of  from 
2  to  feet,  depending  upon  the  lift,  the  width  of  the  lock,  and  the  tenacity  of  the 
masonry  ;  oppose  subterranean  filtrations  by  cross-walls  of  beton  or  masonry  descend¬ 
ing  lower  at  the  head  and  foot  of  the  lock  and  under  the  miter-sills  than  the  general 
foundations,  or  by  carefully-driven  rows  of  matched  sheeting-piles  under  the  whole 
width  of  the  lock ;  make  the  floor  thicker  under  the  miter-sills  and  under  the  lower 
gate-chambers.  Make  an  apron  below  the  lock  whose  thickness  decreases  as  it  recedes 
from  the  lock,  and  whose  total  length  depends  on  the  lift  and. the  resistance  of  the 
soil. 

Sheeting-piles  are  very  efficacious  for  intercepting  subterranean  communications.  I 
have  seen  locks  a  hundred  years  old  on  the  Picardy  Canal  which  still  worked  passably, 
although  the  lock-chamber  no  longer  had  a  floor,  because  the  rows  of  sheeting-piles 
under  the  miter-sills  were  in  good  condition. 

To  have  the  rows  of  sheeting-piles  well  joined  it  is  necessary  to  use  the  system 
which  was  formerly  followed  and  which  is  yet  in  use  among  the  Dutch. 

The  piles  are  so  arranged  as  to  be  capped  by  two  parallel  stringers,  leaving  between 
them  an  interval  equal  to  the  thickness  of  the  sheeting-piles ;  the  latter  can  then  be 
driven  by  continuous  pauels,  and  by  slight  successive  penetrations  along  the  whole 
length  of  the  row,  so  that  they  reach  their  ultimate  penetration  without  losing  con¬ 
tact,  and  mutually  sustaining  each  other ;  which,  as  is  well  known,  is  the  advantage 
of  driving  by  panels. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  they  are  driven  by  the  ordinary  method  of  first  driving  piles 
held  between  two  rows  of  stringers,  and  then  sheeting-piles  in  the  interval  between 
the  clamps,  the  piles  obtain  isolated  holds,  independent  in  direction  one  of  the  other, 
and  it  is  difficult  to  form  a  connection  between  them  and  the  intermediate  sheeting- 
piles. 

Ties  that  are  parallel  to  the  length  of  a  lock  are  the  cause  of  dangerous  filtrations, 
because  when  the  earth  settles  which  was  placed  under  them  it  leaves  a  void  which 
-cannot  be  filled,  and  which  establishes  a  continuous  communication  from  the  water 
above  the  lock  to  that  below  it,  whilst  similar  voids  under  the  caps  are  interrupted  at 
each  pile. 

If,  as  often  happens  in  these  kinds  of  soil,  the  springs  are  very  abundant,  after  having 
excavated  until  the  pumping  becomes  too  costly,  the  trench  for  the  foundations  should 
be  finished  by  dredging.  The  bottom  should  be  graded  to  suit  the  drainage ;  the  sides 
of  the  excavation  should  be  slightly  raised  ;  then  drainage-wells  should  be  dug  in  the 
lowest  parts ;  after  which  the  whole  should  be  covered  by  a  bed  of  from  1  to  2  feet 
of  beton,  so  as  to  have  a  kind  of  large,  flat,  impermeable  canal,  in  which  pumping 
can  be  done  after  the  mortar  has  set. 

Beton,  placed  on  the  soil,  chokes  or  diminishes  the  bottom  springs,  and  makes  pump¬ 
ing  much  less  expensive.  I  found  in  a  similar  case  that  ten  Archimedean  screws  were 
sufficient  to  lay  bare  an  excavation  covered  with  16  inches  of  beton,  while  seventeen 
screws  had  not  succeeded  in  getting  water  lower  than  2£  feet  above  the  bottom  of  this 
excavation. 

If  the  foundations  are  much  below  the  level  of  the  springs,  it  will  be  necessary,  after 
dredging,  to  drive  an  inclosure  of  piles  and  sheeting-piles  at  the  feet  of  the  main  slopes 
of  the  excavation,  which  must  be  somewhat  widened ;  then  a  layer  of  beton,  of  from 
2  to  3  feet  in  thickness,  must  be  poured  into  the  inclosed  space ;  next,  by  means  of 
scaffolds  resting  on  the  heads  of  the  piles  of  the  inclosure,  whose  top  must  be  above  the 
level  of  the  springs,  vertical  or  inclined  posts  must  be  planted  in  the  beton,  which 
will  serve  to  support  panels,  so  as  to  make  a  second  interior  inclosure,  forming  with 
the  first  one  a  perimetrical  coffer-work,  which  should  be  filled  with  beton  up  to  the 
level  of  the  springs,  supporting  it  on  the  exterior  by  e  i.rth  filling.  We  will  thus  have 
a  coffer-dam,  inside  of  which  we  can  pump  out  after  the  mortar  has  set.  The  posts  and 
panels  will  then  be  removed,  and  the  masonry  will  be  built.  The  masses  of  beton  in 
the  coffer  dam,  cut  in  steps  if  the  posts  were  inclined,  will  form  part  of  the  side-walls 
and  of  the  lift-wall.  At  the  lower  end  of  the  lock  they  must  be  removed  to  below  the 
surface,  in  order  to  open  communication  with  the  lock,  unless  from  motives  of  econ¬ 
omy  this  part  of  the  coffer-dam  was  made  of  clay,  which  can  more  readily  be  removed. 

If  there  is  danger  of  cracking  the  beton  by  driving  in  the  posts,  their  feet  can  be  but¬ 
tressed  by  long  timbers  extending  from  one  side  of  the  coffer-dam  to  the  other. 

The  interior  posts  ought  to  be  somewhat  inclined;  if  they  are  much  inclined,  consid¬ 
erably  less  beton  is  required.  But  that  part  which  fills  the  acute  angle  of  the  coffer- 
work  chn  only  get  there  by  flowing  down  a  slope,  and  at  this  part  all  the  milk  of  the 
beton  ( laitance )  will  be  accumulated.  This  has  but  a  very  moderate  consistence,  and 
may  give  rise  to  accidents,  which  can  be  avoided  by  using  vertical  or  slightly-inclined 
panels. 

I  have  given  the  above  translation  on  account  of  its  intrinsic  value, 
and  because  it  is  contained  in  a  very  valuable  treatise,  (Minard’s  Navi- 


16 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


gation  des  Rivieres  et  des  Canaux,)  which  is  now  out  of  print.  This  book 
was  recommended  to  me  by  a  distinguished  French  engineer,  (M.  Male- 
zieux,)  as  the  best  authority  on  such  work,  and  by  good  fortune  I  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  securing  a  copy.  I  ought  to  add  that  u  beton”  and  “  concrete  ” 
are  synonymous  terms. 

I  think  that  I  am  perfectly  safe  in  saying  that  every  lock  on  the  Ohio 
will  be  founded  on  rock,  gravel,  or  saud. 

Having  estimated  for  a  lock  on  rock  foundation,  it  remains  to  deter¬ 
mine  what  modification  will  be  required  in  the  estimates  for  sand  and 
gravel  foundations. 

The  great  difficulty  occurs  in  the  lock-chamber.  Although  by  using 
sheet-piling  we  may  greatly  reduce  the  percolation  of  water  through 
the  soil  under  the  lock,  it  is  impossible  to  stop  it  entirely.  The  effect 
of  this  under-current  of  water  is  to  cause  an  upward  pressure  on  the 
floor  of  the  lock  whenever  the  chamber  is  empty.  This  upward  pressure 
must  be  met  by  dead-weight,  or  by  weight  aided  by  tenacity.  If  we 
use  nothing  but  concrete,  it  will  resist  partly  by  its  weight,  (due  al¬ 
lowance  being  made  for  reduction  of  weight  by  immersion,)  and  partly 
by  its  construction  as  a  monolith  with  its  ends  firmly  held  under  the 
side- walls. 

If  we  fill  the  area  with  piles  and  a  less  amount  of  concrete  in  the 
spaces  between  the  piles,  we  will  then  have  a  resistance  due  to  the 
weight  of  the  concrete  in  water,  increased  by  the  resistance  of  the  piles 
to  extraction. 

Lastly,  we  may  use  masonry  built  in  what  is  known  as  plate-bands, 
or  reversed  arches  with  an  infinite  radius  for  the  intrados.  The  key¬ 
stone  is  wedge-shaped,  with  its  widest  face  lowest ;  the  other  voussoirs 
have  their  sides  inclining  toward  the  key,  and  their  under-widths  are 
slightly  greater  than  their  widths  at  the  intrados.  The  plate-band  may 
therefore  be  considered  as  the  extreme  case  of  a  flat  arch.  It  may  be 
built  on  a  foundation  of  concrete,  or  on  a  wooden  platform,  thus  making 
two  additional  methods. 

All  the  plans  described  above  require  the  same  expenditure  for  coffer¬ 
dam,  and  for  the  rows  of  sheet-piling  designed  to  prevent  subterranean 
filtration.  The  cost  of  these  works  will  therefore  be  estimated  before 
going  into  the  details  of  the  floor. 

COFFER-DAM. 

This  will  be  built  of  two  rows  of  piles  and  sheeting-piles,  8  feet  apart, 
and  the  space  between  the  rows  will  be  filled  with  gravel.  The  outside 
sheeting-piles  will  be  3  inches  thick  and  12  feet  long  ;  the  inner  ones 
being  2  inches  by  10  feet  long.  The  latter  will  the  driven  by  hand. 

Coffer-dam  per  running  foot. 


Material. 

Price. 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

Piles,  18'  long . 

$5.40  per  pile  driven . 

1-5 . 

$1  08 

Outer  sheeting-piles . . 

3.00  per  pile  driven . 

1.1-5 . 

3  60 

Inner  sheeting-piles . 

40.00  per  1,000  feet . 

20  feet,  board-measure _ 

80 

W  ales . 

35.00  per  1,000  feet . 

12  feet,  board-measure  . . . 

42 

Gravel . 

50  per  cubic  yard . 

2£  cubic  yards . 

*  1  17 

Labor . . . . . 

2  00 

Total . . . . . 

9  07 

Cost,  of  1  040  feet,  of  coffer-djim _ _ _ _ 

9,  434  80 

TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


17 


Sheeting -piles. 

The  sheet-piling,  to  prevent  filtration,  should  extend  along  the  whole 
length  of  the  river-wall,  across  the  head,  across  the  foot,  under  the 
lower  miter-sill,  and  on  the  prolongation  of  the  line  of  the  dam.  Its 
total  length  will  be  1,136  feet. 


Sheet-piling  per  running  foot. 


Material. 

Price. 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

Piles,  14'  long . 

$4.68 . 

1-10 . 

$0  47 
5  7ft 
37 
1  00 

Sheeting-piles  ...... _ _ .......... 

4.80  per  pile  driven . 

1.1-5  . 

Wales . 

35.000  per  1,00  feet . 

10.67  feet,  hoard-measure.. 

T.ahor . . . . 

TVvhil  _ 

7  60 

Cost  of  1,136  feet  of  sheeting 

-piles . . . . . . . . 

8,  633  60 

Pumping. 

The  price  of  pumping  will  be  taken  at  the  price  previously  deter¬ 
mined,  viz,  $3,020  for  the  two  seasons  that  will  probably  be  required 
for  constructing  the  lock. 

FLOORS  OF  LOCK-CHAMBERS. 


Concrete  only. 


To  determine  the  necessary  thickness  of  the  concrete,  I>e  Lagrene, 
(Navigation  Interieure,  vol.  iii,  p.  77,)  gives  the  following  formula  : 


C  —  - - 

7 r 

in  which 

e  =  thickness  of  concrete  in  meters  ; 
l  =  half- width  of  lock  in  meters  =  12  ; 
h  =  lift  of  lock  in  meters  =  2  $ 

t r  =  safe  tensile-strain  on  concrete  =  5  tons  per  square  meter. 
Substituting  these  values  in  the  formula,  we  get 


e 


-144  +  12  V  144  +  2x2x5 
5 


=  1.9  meters  =  6J  feet. 


This  result  is  a  large  one,  and,  as  experience  has  shown  (Minard, 
Navigation  des  Kivieres  et  des  Canaux,  p.  184)  that  the  under  pressure 
is  always  less  than  the  theoretical  head,  I  have  estimated  on  a  uniform 


thickness  of  6  feet. 

17,333  cubic  yards  concrete,  at  $5 . .  $86,  665 

22,000  cubic  yards  gravel-excavation,  at  30  cents .  6,  600 


Piles  and  platform  with  concrete. 


93,  265 


The  usual  practice  in  France  is  to  put  the  concrete  on  top  of  the 
platform,  while  the  contrary  is  the  practice  in  this  country.  It  seems 

S.  Ex.  19,  pt.  8 - 2 


18 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


to  me  that  where  concrete  is  used  under  the  platform  voids  may  occur 
under  the  bottom  of  the  lock  by  settlement  or  otherwise,  and  that 
under  these  circumstances  the  concrete  would  probably  become  de¬ 
tached  from  the  piles  and  the  under- surface  of  the  platform,  with  which 
its  bond  is  necessarily  weak,  and  would  fall  into  these  voids.  If  this 
should  happen,  the  platform  would  have  to  withstand  the  under-pres¬ 
sure  without  any  help  from  the  concrete.  This  would  not  occur,  how¬ 
ever,  where  the  concrete  wras  placed  above  the  platform,  and  for  that 
reason  I  prefer  the  French  practice. 

In  the  following  estimate  the  supporting-piles  are  placed  7  feet  apart 
over  the  whole  area  occupied  by  the  chamber,  and  3J  feet  apart  under 
the  walls,  and  3  feet  of  concrete  is  placed  on  the  platform.  The  maxi¬ 
mum  upward  pull  on  each  pile  under  the  chamber,  allowing  for  the 
maximum  under-pressure  due  to  the  head,  is  calculated  at  5  tons,  but 
experience  has  shown  that  this  is  much  greater  than  will  be  found  in 
practice.  The  friction  on  the  sides  of  the  piles  will  be  ample  to  with¬ 
stand  this  upward  pressure  even  at  its  maximum. 


Lock  foundation-piles  and  concrete. 


Materials. 

Price. 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

Piles  12  feet  long,  driven . . . . 

8425 . 

2,576 . 

$10, 948 
4,  725 
4,200 
10,  920 
1,  201 
720 
1,  288 
390 
220 
43,  335 
3,750 
6,  600 
1,  250 

Caps  10  by  12  . 

$35  per  1,000 . 

135,000 . 

Iron  straps,  spikes,  and  bolts . 

6  cents . . 

70,000  pounds . 

4-iuoh  floor-planks . . . . . . . 

$35  per  1,000  . 

312,000 . 

Transverse  floor-binders,  6  by  8  .. 

$35  per  1  000  . 

34,320  feet  b.  m _ 

18,000  pounds . 

8-inch  spikes . 

4  cents . 

Labor  capping  piles . 

50  cents . . . 

2,576  . 

Labor  laying  floor  _ _ _ _ _ 

50  cents . _ _ 

780  linear  feet _ 

Labor  laying  floor-binders 

110 

Concrete . 

$5 . 

8,667  cubic  yards. . 
2,500  cubic  yards.. 
22,000  cubic  yards. 
2,500 . 

Pi  p-rap  . 

$1.50 . 

Gravel-excavation  . . . . 

30  cents . . __ 

Pilling . 

50  cents _ _ _ 

Total . . . . 

89,  547 

Plate-bands  of  masonry  resting  on  concrete  and  on  piles  and  platform. 

The  thickness  of  the  plate-bands  will  be  taken  at  2J  feet,  resting  on  2 
feet  of  concrete  in  the  first  case,  and  on  piles  and  platform  in  the  second. 
In  the  first  case,  therefore,  there  will  be  a  substitution  of  2£  feet  of  plate- 
band  masonry  for  4  feet  of  concrete.  The  volumes  of  the  two  will  there¬ 
fore  be  in  the  proportion  of  5  to  8.  Equality  in  cost  would  require  that 
the  price  of  a  cubic  yard  of  masonry  should  be  one  and  three-fifths 
greater  than  that  of  a  cubic  yard  of  concrete.  But  as  this  masonry 
must  be  of  cut-stone,  it  is  evident  that  its  cost  would  more  than  exceed 
this  limit.  This  method  of  construction,  therefore,  need  not  be  exam¬ 
ined  in  detail.  The  same  remarks  apply  still  more  strongly  to  the  case 
of  plate-bands  or  piles  and  platform,  as  in  this  case  the  2£  feet  of  ma¬ 
sonry  only  replaces  3  feet  of  concrete. 

Where  concrete  is  used,  with  or  without  piles  and  platform,  the  bed 
of  concrete  must  extend  under  the  side-walls,  replacing  a  portion  of  the 
masonry.  This  will  make  a  reduction  in  cost  of  about  $5,000  in  lock- 
masoury. 

Summing  up  the  results  thus  far  obtained,  we  get  the  following: 

Lock  on  gravel  with  concrete  floor. 


Coffer-dam .  $9,  433 

Sheeting-piles .  8,634 

Pumping .  3,  020 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES.  19 

Foundation  and  floor .  $93,  265 

Lock,  as  per  estimate  for  rock-foundation .  179, 610 


Total .  293, 962 

Deduct  from  estimate  on  rock-foundation,  coffer-dam,  and  pump¬ 
ing . . . ... . . . . . .. .. . . .  $6,000 

Rock- excavation .  20,  000 

Saving  on  lock- walls .  5, 000 

- 31,000 


262, 962 

Add  10  per  cent,  for  contingencies .  26, 296 


Total  cost  of  lock . . .  289, 258 


Lock  on  gravel  with  piles,  platform,  and  concrete. 


Coffer-dam .  $9,  433 

Sheeting-piles .  8,634 

Pumping.. .  3,020 

Foundation  and  floor .  89,  547 

Lock,  as  per  first  estimate,  with  deductions  as  indicated  above .  148, 610 


259, 244 


Add  10  per  cent,  for  contingencies . .  * .  25, 924 

Total  cost  of  lock .  285, 168 


The  foundation  of  concrete  on  piles  and  platform  being  the  cheaper 
of  the  two,  will  be  the  one  that  will  be  used  in  the  estimates. 

The  costs  of  the  navigable  pass,  the  weirs,  and  the  piers  will  also  be 
different  on  gravel  from  what  they  were  on  rock. 

The  following  are  the  estimates  on  this  part  of  the  work  : 

The  coffer-dams  are  allowed  to  remain  and  become  a  part  of  the 
work,  care  being  taken  to  cut  them  down  to  a  foot  or  two  below  the 
level  of  the  sills.  The  high  weir  has  practically  no  coffer-dam,  as  what 
might  be  considered  such  is  filled  with  concrete,  and  thus  made  the  foun¬ 
dation  for  the  wickets. 

Navigable  pass  and  low  weir  on  gravel. 

COFFER-DAM  AND  FOUNDATION. 


Material. 


Price. 


Quantity. 


Cost. 


Coffer-dam  : 

Piles,  18  feet  long. 

Sheet-piles . 

Stringers . 

Small  sheet-piles 

Binders . 

Bolts . 

Dredging . 

Concrete . 

Cut-stone . . 

Sills . 

Labor . 


$5.16  per  pile  driven  . . 
$6.65  per  pile  driven  . . 

$35  per  1,000  feet . 

$1.50  per  pile  driven  .. 

$35  per  1,000  feet . 

3  cents  per  pound . 

30  cents  per  yard . 

$5  per  yard . 

$15  per  yard . 

$45  per  i, 000  feet . 


2  5 . 

2 . 

980  feet  . 

2 . 

7  feet  . 

200  pounds . 

7  yards  . 

5|  yards  . 

1  13-100  yard . 

34  feet  . 


$2  06 
13  30 
34  30 
3  00 
25 
6  00 
2  10 
27  50 
16  95 
1  51 
5  00 


Total  per  running  foot 


111  97 


20 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


High  web '  on  gravel. 


COFFER-DAM  AND  FOUNDATION. 


Material. 

Price. 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

Piles,  13  feet  long. . . . . . 

|4.56  per  pile  driven  .. 
$5.63  per  pile  driven  . . 
$35  per  1,000  feet. 

$ . 

$3  36 
11  26 
2  80 
9  40 

1  51 
15  00 

X  oo 

2  00 
5  00 

Sheet-piles . . . . . . 

2 . 

80  feet . . . 

Stringers _ _ _ 

Binders . 

$45  per  1,000  feet . 

208.8  feet . 

Sills . . . . . . 

$45  per  1,000  feet . 

34  feet . . 

Concrete . . . . . . . 

$5  per  yard . 

3  yards . . 

ftra,  vel . . . . . . 

50  cents  per  yard . 

2  yards  . . 

Bip-rap . 

$2  per  yard . 

1  yard  . . 

Labor . . . 

Total  per  running  foot. . . . . 

51  33 

Pier  on  gravel. 

The  cost  of  foundation  will  be  the  same  as  that  for  the  pass  on  gravel. 
The  area  of  the  pier  will  either  be  included  in  the  coffer-dam  for  the 
pass,  or  in  that  for  the  low  weir,  and  therefore  its  cost  can  be  obtained 
from  the  one  given  for  these  parts  by  omitting  the  cut-stone  and  sills 


and  multiplying  by  11.48. 

We  therefore  have : 

Foundation,  (111.97-18.46)  X  11.48  . . . $1,073  50 

Masonry  and  capstan,  as  per  previous  estimate .  3, 385  44 

Total .  4,458  94 


Abutment  on  gravel. 

The  estimate  already  made  for  the  abutment  supposes  it  to  be  founded 
on  gravel,  and  therefore  it  need  not  be  changed. 

SUMMARY. 

Bringing  together  the  estimates  just  made,  we  find  the  following : 

Navigable  pass  on  gravel. 


Coffer-dam  and  foundation,  per  running  foot .  $111  97 

Pumping,  per  running  foot . - .  3  00 

Appurtenances  of  the  sole,  per  running  foot .  25  55 

Wicket . . .  48  57 

Total .  189  09 

Low  weir  on  gravel. 

Coffer-dam  and  foundation,  per  running  foot .  $111  97 

Pumping,  per  running  foot .  3  00 

Appurtenances  of  the  sole,  per  running  foot .  21  29 

Wicket .  40  47 


Total,  per  running  foot .  176  73 


High  weir  on  gravel. 


Coffer-dam  and  foundation,  per  running  foot .  $51  33 

Pumping,  per  running  foot .  3  00 

Appurtenances  of  the  sole,  per  running  foot . 17  03 

Wicket . 32  38 

Total,  per  running  foot .  103  74 

Pier .  44  59 

Abutment .  86  46 


TOTAL  ESTIMATE  FOR  OHIO  RIVER. 

In  making  this  estimate  it  is  first  necessary  to  have  an  approximate 
location  for  each  lock  and  dam,  and  then  to  appty  to  the  lengths  thus 
determined  the  costs  per  running  foot  that  are  given  above. 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


21 


In  the  estimate  based  on  rock-foundation  the  prices  per  running  foot 
<do  not  contain  the  20  per  cent,  for  contingencies  which  was  subsequently 
added,  nor  is  it  contained  in  the  estimates  per  running  foot  for  gravel- 
foundations;  adding  this  percentage  to  the  calculated  sums  per  running 
foot,  we  have  the  following  general  table  of  costs,  from  which  we  can 
obtain  the  approximate  costs  of  all  the  parts  of  any  dam,  whatever  may 
be  its  length.  The  abutment  is  supposed  in  all  cases  to  rest  on  sand 
or  gravel,  as  also  the  dams  for  closing  island-chutes. 

Table  of  costs  of  different  parts. 


Rock-founda¬ 

tion. 

Gravel- 

foundation. 

$179,  610  00 
166  40 
138  56 
130  27 
5,  049  00 

$285, 168  00 
226  91 
212  08 
112  49 
5,351  00 
10,  375  00 
78  21 

Navigable  pass . per  foot. . 

Low  weir . do - 

High  weir . do _ 

Pier . 

Abutment . 

Ham  behind  island . per  foot. . 

The  following  list  gives  the  approximate  locations  for  all  the  dams 
required  on  the  Ohio,  in  order  to  give  6  feet  of  water  for  navigation  at 
all  times.  It  is  not  supposed  that  these  exact  sites  will  be  chosen,  be¬ 
cause  no  detailed  examination  with  a  view  to  choosing  sites  was  made 
below  Wheeling,  nor  would  it  have  been  judicious  to  have  expended 
any  money  on  a  more  extended  examination  in  advance  of  the  actual 
construction  of  at  least  one  movable  darn.  The  experience  which  will 
necessarily  be  acquired  in  such  construction  will  probably  lead  to  some 
modifications  in  the  plans  herewith  presented,  though  I  am  firmly  of  the 
opinion  that  these  modifications  will  be  improvements  in  details  and  not 
changes  in  the  general  plan. 

It  should  be  added  that  the  special  survey  made  last  summer  between 
Pittsburgh  and  Wheeling  demonstrated  that  there  was  an  error  of  about 
8  feet  in  the  fall  between  these  two  cities  as  reported  in  the  final  report 
of  Mr.  Milnor  Roberts.  I  believe  that  for  this  part  of  the  river  Mr. 
Roberts  used  the  old  surveys  of  1838,  and  the  inaccuracy  was  probably 
in  them.  This  error  shows  that  two  more  dams  will  be  required  on  the 
Ohio  than  he  supposed.  According  to  our  present  information  68  dams 
is  all  that  will  be  needed. 

Approximate  location  of  proposed  dams  on  Ohio  River. 


<D 

& 

s 

£ 

Miles  from 
Pittsburgh. 

Locality. 

Length. 

Lift  of  dam. 

1 

4.7 

Davis’s  Island . . 

1,  580+ 
1,040+ 
1,350 

1,  550 

1,  160 

1,  390 
l,  425 

420 

6. 000 

2 

8.0 

Duff’s  Bar  . . 

450 

5.  769 

3 

11.3 

White  s  Bar  below  Hayes’s  Run . 

6.  441 

4 

13.8 

Head  of  Headman’s  Island . 

5.  940 

5 

20.0 

1,000  feet  above  Crow  Island . 

6.  054 

6 

26.5 

Beaver  Shoals . 

6,  396 
6.  770 

7 

32.8 

Foot  of  Montgomery’s  Island . . . 

8 

37.8 

Head  of  Georgetown  Island . 

1, 180 

1,  500 

1,  000  + 
700+ 
1,  350 

1,  350 

5.  280 

9 

43.  0 

Foot  of  Babb’s  Island . 

6.  000 

10 

54.5 

Black’s  Island  . . 

600 

6.  000 

11 

62.0 

Brown’s  Island . 

600 

6.  000 

12 

68.0 

Head  of  Wells’s  Bar . 

6.  000 

13 

77.5 

Beech  Bottom  Bar . 

6.  000 

14 

89.0 

Head  of  Wheeling  Island . 

1,  000  X 

1,  100 

700 

7.  000 

15 

94.0 

Mouth  of  McMahon’s  Creek . 

7.  018 

16 

102  0 

2,000  feet  below  Big  Grove  Creek . 

1,  200 

6.  000 

17 

112.5 

1,400  feet  above  Fish  Creek . 

750  + 

1,  000 

750 

6.  000 

18 

119.3 

2,600  feet  below  Opossum  Creek . 

6.  000 

22 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


Approximate  location  of  proposed  dams  on  Ohio  Biver — Continued. 


& 

S 

a 


19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 


34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 


62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 


Miles  from 
Pittsburgh. 

Locality. 

1 

Length. 

127. 3 

1, 350 

138.  4 

Middle  of  Wells’s  Island . 

1, 000+  800 

1,  380 

146.  7 

158.  8 

1,  600 

600+  950 

2,  300 

170.  0 

180.  4 

188.  4 

1,  650 

202.  2 

1, 100+  750 
1,600 

1,  400 

850+  450 
1,380 

212.  3 

223.  0 

233.  0 

239.  8 

243.  7 

3.700  feet  below  Big  Broad  Bun . 

1,  050 

1,  300 

256.  0 

267.  0 

1,  600 

285.3 

1,  400 

1,  450 

1,  350 

1,300 

1,  500 

289. 1 

308.  3 

Buffalo  Creek  Bar . 

315.  8 

Big  Sandy  Shoals . 

329.  4 

Ferguson’s  Bar . . . . 

336.  3 

Jenalt’s  Shoals . . . . 

1,500 

1, 150 

1,  750 

1,  850 

351.3 

Cub  Creek  Bar . . . . . 

364.5 

Conoconneque  Bar  . . 

382.  0 

Graham’s  Lower  Station  Bar . 

393.  8 

TJpper  end  of  Manchester . . . . . . 

1,  830 

1,  800 

1,  850 

1,  700 

1,670 

1,  950 

419.  0 

Lower  end  of  Straight  Creek  Bar . . . 

444.  5 

Kichmond  Bar . 

458.0 

Four-mile  Bar . . . . 

485.  6 

Foot  of  Medoc  Bar . 

501.  3 

Bi  sing  Sun  . . . . _ . . 

509.  5 

Gunpowder  Bar . 

2,  000 

2,  350 

530.  8 

Head  Bar  of  V evay  Island . . 

544.  5 

Locust.  Creek  Bar _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

1,  870 

2,  700 

1,  610 

2,  000 

580.  8 

Grassy  Flats . . . 

617.  2 

Christopher’s  Crossing . 

634.  2 

j  Moman’s  Bar . . . . . 

655.  6 

Foot  of  Upper  Blue  Biver  Island . 

2,  250 

2,  800 

2, 100 

2,  700 

2,  550 

3,  250 

2, 250+  650 

3,  550 

1,  700+1,  350 

3,  250 

2,  300+1,370 

2,  800+1,  000 

683.4 

1  Lower  point  of  Flint  Island . 

709.  3 

1  Head  of  Hog’s  Point  Bar . .  . . . 

731.  2 

Foot  of  Anderson’s  Bar . . . . 

752.  3 

Little  Hurricane  Island . . 

767.7 

Scuffletown  Bar . . . 

796.  4 

Henderson’s  Island . 1 . 

813.  3 

Head  of  Walnut  Bend . 

838.2 

580  feet  above  mouth  of  Wabash  Biver . 

859.5 

Battery  Bock  towhead . 

873.  7 

Head  of  Hurricane  Island . . 

907.  5 

Cumberland  Island . . . 

942.  5 

Head  of  Grand  chain . . 

960.0 

Just  above  mouth  of  Cache  Biver . 

4,  000 

6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  OfO 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  OOO 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
6.  000 
4.  000 


Sum  of  widths  of  main  river .  118,  885 

Sum  of  widths  of  island  chute .  10,  840 


I  have  had  the  above  table  prepared,  not  with  the  expectation  that  the 
sites  selected  will  actually  be  chosen,  but  because  such  a  table  will  un¬ 
doubtedly  give  a  sum  of  lengths  of  dam  that  cannot  be  greatly  in  error  ; 
and,  therefore,  it  will  represent  the  total  length  of  dam  required  much 
better  than  can  be  obtained  by  multiplying  the  number  of  dams  by  any 
arbitrarily  assumed  averages,  unless  that  average  be  determined  from 
such  a  table. 

It  is  impossible  at  present  to  tell  how  many  of  these  locks  and  dams 
will  rest  on  rock.  I  think,  however,  it  will  be  safe  for  this  general  esti¬ 
mate  to  assume  that  twelve  locks,  eight  navigable  passes,  six  low  iveirs, 
and  three  high  weirs  will  be  on  rock,  and  the  remainder  on  gravel.  Rock 
can  be  found  on  many  shores  for  the  establishment  of  the  lock;  and 
sometimes  this  r,ock  can  be  found  half-way  or  more  across  the  river.  It 
is  very  rare,  however,  to  find  it  extending  across  the  entire  river  with- 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


23 


ug  so  covered  with  gravel  as  to  make  it  better  not  to  carry  the 
J^Rlown  to  it. 

;;  ^^width  of  400  feet  in  the  clear  will  be  given  to  each  navigable 
■rs,  and  to  each  low  weir.  The  width  occupied  by  high  weir  will 
ye estimated  at  the  entire  width  of  the  river,  diminished  by  the  space 
occupied  by  the  lock,  (assumed  at  50  feet,  on  the  supposition  that 
part  of  the  rock  will  be  in  the  bank,)  by  the  width  of  the  two  weirs, 
and  by  the  widths  of  the  two  piers.  The  width  of  high  weir  will,  there¬ 
fore,  be  the  width  of  the  river,  diminished  by  878  feet.  The  sum  of  all 
the  widths  of  river  at  the  selected  sites  being  118,885  feet,  the  sum  of 
the  widths  of  high  weir  will  be  118,885  —  873  x  68  =  59,521  feet;  di¬ 
viding  this  by  68,  we  find  the  average  length  of  each  high  weir  to  be  875 
feet.  Bearing  in  mind  that  the  high  weirs  on  rock  will  only  be  found, 
if  at  all,  in  the  upper  part  of  the  river,  it  will  be  safer  to  give  these  three 
high  weirs  an  average  width  of  600  feet,  thus  making  the  average  width 
of  the  65  on  gravel  888  feet. 


FINAL  ESTIMATE. 

12  locks  on  rock,  at  $179,610 .  $2, 155, 320 

56  locks  on  gravel,  at  $285,168 . .  15,  969,  408 

8  navigable  passes  on  rock,  at  $166.40  X  400 .  532,  480 

60  navigable  passes  on  gravel,  at  $226.91  X  400 .  5,  445,  840 

6  low  weirs  on  rock,  at  $138.56  X  400  .  332,  544 

62  low  weirs  on  gravel,  at  $212.08  X  400  .  5, 259,  584 

3  high  weirs  on  rock,  at  $130.27  X  600  .  234,  486 

65  high  weirs  on  gravel,  at  112.49  X  888  .  6,  492,  923 

23  piers  on  rock,  at  $5,049 . .  116, 127 

113  piers  on  gravel,  at  $5,351 .  604,  663 

68  abutments  on  gravel,  at  $10,375  . .  705,  500 

70,840  lineal  feet  of  dam  across  island-chutes,  at  $78.21  .  847, 796 


Total  cost  of  radical  improvement  of  the  Ohio .  38, 696, 671 


The  above  estimate  has  been  made  with  a  great  deal  of  care,  and  is 
about  the  best  that  it  is  possible  under  our  present  knowledge.  It  is  a 
very  difficult  and  uncertain  task  to  make  estimates  for  works  of  such 
magnitude  in  the  absence  of  practical  experience  in  construction  of  a 
single  one,  and  I  would  not  presume  to  undertake  it  at  the  present  time, 
were  it  not  for  positive  orders  to  do  so.  Considering  the  additional 
difficulties  that  will  be  encountered  below  the  falls  of  the  Ohio,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  the  short  and  uncertain  season  for  work,  and  the  enormous 
masses  of  sand  that  are  transported  by  the  current,  which  will  undoubt¬ 
edly  cause  delays  and  extra  work,  I  think  it  would  be  safer  to  put  the 
whole  estimate  at  $40,000,000,  which  is  at  the  rate  of  $41,365  per  mile, 
the  total  length  of  the  Ohio  River  being  967  miles.  Bearing  in  mind 
the  euormous  tonnage  that  would  be  borne  on  the  river,  if  it  were  made 
navigable  throughout  the  year,  it  does  not  seem  unreasonable  to  request 
appropriations  for  its  improvement  at  least  equal  to  the  sum  that  would 
be  required  to  build  a  railroad  of  equal  length. 

Poor’s  Railroad  Manual  for  1873-’74  gives  the  following  as  the  averag’e 
cost  per  mile  of  the  railroads  in  the  United  States,  deduced  from  the 
sum  of  the  stock  and  bonds  of  the  companies  owning  them  : 

Per  mile. 


New  Euglancl  States .  $50,418 

Middle  States .  79,  42? 

Western  States .  50,550 


These  numbers  include  rolling-stock  and  expenses  of  all  kinds. 

In  making  appropriations  for  the  radical  implement  of  the  Ohio, 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  radical  improvement  should  com¬ 
mence  at  the  upper  end  of  tbe  river,  and  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  the 
commerce  of  the  remainder  of  the  river  to  entirely  neglect  it  while  work 


24 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


was  progressing  at  the  upper  end.  To  remove  obstructions,  do  necj 
dredging,  keep  up  the  central  office,  and  build  the  dikes  require 
the  temporary  improvement  of  the  remainder  of  the  river,  would 
about  $200,000  per  annum,  gradually  decreasing  to  $50,000  after 
works  were  completed.  This  last  sum,  unless  raised  from  tolls,  would 
perpetually  required  for  the  maintenance  of  the  central  office  in  charge" 
of  the  works,  the  snag-boat  for  removing  snags,  and  the  two  dredges, 
for  which  occupation  would  always  be  found  in  keeping  the  locks  and 
passes  clear  of  deposits  and  in  improving  the  river  for  navigation  when 
the  dams  were  down. 

To  give  some  idea  of  how  much  money  would  be  required  to  secure 
the  radical  improvement  of  the  Ohio,  and  of  the  time  necessary  to  con¬ 
struct  the  works,  I  have  prepared  the  following  table,  based  on  the  sup¬ 
positions  that  the  river  below  the  dams  will  not  be  neglected,  and  that 
the  tolls  charged  on  the  finished  works  will  meet  their  own  expenses 
for  repairs  and  attendance.  To  construct  one  lock  will  probably  require 
two  seasons,  and  to  construct  one  dam  will  require  two  seasons  more. 
There  is  nothing,  however,  to  prevent  simultaneous  work  at  all  the 
sites  selected ;  and,  in  fact,  this  would  be  the  better  method,  in  order  to 
reduce  to  a  minimum  the  disturbance  to  navigation. 

I  assume  that  whenever  a  part  of  the  river  is  being  prepared  for  locks 
and  darns,  that  in  this  portion  no  part  of  the  $150,000  allowed  for  gradually 
decreasing  improvements  by  dikes,  dredging,  and  other  temporary  works, 
will  be  required.  In  other  words,  if  half  the  dams  are  under  contract, 
there  will  only  be  required  tor  misellaneous  expenditures,  outside  of  the 


system  of  locks  and  dams,  $50,000  -f 


$150,000 


=  $125,000. 


The  upper  half  of  the  river  contains  more  dams  than  the  lower  half; 
but  I  have  neglected  this  consideration,  believing  that  it  would  be  an 
unnecessary  refinement. 


Time  for  completion. 

Annual  appropriations. 

Eor  locks  and 
dams. 

Eor  snagging. 

For  dredg¬ 
ing,  &c. 

Total  in  each 
year. 

Four  years _ 

$10,  000,  000 

1 st  4  years . 

50,  0C0 

$10,  050,  000 

Eight  years 

5,  000,  000 

1st  4  years . 

125,  000 

5, 125,  000 

2d  4  years . 

■  50,000 

5,  050,  000 

Sixteen  years  . 

2,  500,  000 

1st  4  years . 

162,  500 

2,  662,  500 

2d  4  years  . 

125,  000 

2,  625,  000 

3d  4  years . 

87,  500 

2,  587,  500 

4th  4  years . 

50,  000 

2,  550,  000 

Thirty. two  years 

1,  250,  000 

1st  4  years . 

181,  250 

1,  431,250 

2d  4  years . 

162,  500 

1,  412,  500 

3d  4  years . 

143,  750 

1,  393,  750 

4th  4  years . 

125,  000 

1,  375,  000 

5th  4  years . 

106,  250 

1,  356,  250 

1  6th  4  years . 

87,  500 

1,  337,  500 

7th  4  years . 

68,  750 

1,  318,  750 

8th  4  years . 

50,  000 

1,  300,  000 

Sixt.y-tnnr  years  _ _ 

625,000 

1st  4  years . 

190,  625 

815,  625 

2d  4  years . 

181,  250 

806,  250 

3d  4  years . 

171,875 

796,  875 

4th  4  vears . 

162,  500 

787,  500 

5th  4  years . 

153, 125 

778, 125 

6th  4  years . 

143,  750 

768,  750 

7th  4  years . 

134.  375 

759, 375 

8th  4  years . 

125,  000 

750,  000 

9th  4  years . 

115,  625 

740,  625 

10th  4  years . 

160,  250 

731,  250 

llth  4  years . 

96,  875 

728,  875 

12th  4  years . 

87,  500 

712,  500 

13th  4  years . 

78, 125 

7C3,  125 

14th  4  years . 

68,  750 

693,  750 

15th  4  years . 

59,  375 

684,  375 

16th  4  years . 

50,  000 

675,  000 

Grand  total. 


$40,  200,  OOO 

40,  700,  000 

41,  700,  000 

43,  700,  000 


47,  700,  000 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


25 


In  (^elusion  I  would  add  that  I  am  not  at  all  assured  in  my  own 
inind/iat  the  system  proposed  will  be  found  serviceable  on  the  Ohio 
belo/the  falls.  But  I  do  feel  sure  that  it  is  a  better  system  than 
tha/of  permanent  dams  ;  and  besides,  it  is  the  only  other  system  that 
proiises  the  depth  required  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Transportation. 
TU  system  of  dikes  for  controlling  and  guiding  the  current  cannot  be 
defended  upon  to  give  more  than  4  feet  at  dead  low  water,  and  even 
ths  depth  will  require  an  immense  development  of  these  works. 
Tlowever,  if  the  system  of  movable  dams  is  commenced  at  Pittsburgh, 
a Jd  gradually  brought  down  the  river,  we  will  pass  by  degrees  from  hard 
b/ttom  to  soft  sand,  and  while  so  doing  we  will  acquire  abundant  expe¬ 
rience  as  to  the  practicability  of  successfully  encountering  the  shifting 
sfeids  of  the  lower  river. 

/  It  may  be  interesting  in  this  connection  to  state  that  in  France,  between 
i821  and  1853,  the  government  spent  535  millions  of  francs,  equal  to  107 
millions  of  dollars,  in  improving  navigation,  partly  by  canals  and  partly 
by  rivers ;  during  the  same  time  private  companies  spent  100  millions  of 
francs,  or  20  millions  of  dollars,  for  the  same  purpose.  I  have  no  statis¬ 
tics  on  this  subject  since  1853,  but  the  additional  sum  expended  must 
be  very  large,  as  several  canals  have  been  built,  and  also  all  the  larger 
movable  dams  in  the  Seine,  Marne,  and  other  rivers.  These  facts  are 
well  worth  consideration,  in  view  of  the  extraordinary  resources  recently 
displayed  by  France  in  bearing  the  burdens  imposed  by  the  disastrous 
war  with  Germany. 

I  inclose  herewith  a  small  drawing  showing  the  proposed  arrange¬ 
ment  of  lock  and  dam  for  the  Ohio.  I  do  not  inclose  drawings  of  the 
Chanoine  wicket,  as  they  accompanied  my  last  annual  report,  although 
it  is  proper  to  add  that  I  do  not  propose  the  use  of  the  movable  bridge 
shown  in  these  drawings,  but  expect  to  work  the  wickets  by  a  maneu¬ 
vering  boat. 

I  have  been  greatly  indebted,  in  tbe  labor  of  preparing  this  report,  to 
the  assistance  of  Lieut.  F.  A.  Mahan,  Engineers,  who  made  the  estimates 
on  movable  dams,  and  to  Mr.  W.  Weston,  assistant  engineer,  who  made 
the  estimates  on  the  locks  and  on  the  dams  for  closing  island-chutes. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

WM.  E.  MERRILL, 

Major  of  Engineers. 

Brig.  Gen.  A.  A.  Humphreys, 

Chief  of  Engineers  U.  S.  A. 

S.  Ex.  19,  pt.  8 - 3 


26 


TRANSPORTATION  ROUTES. 


